A second 'reasoned decision' that fixes the numbers does not save the first
On 4 May 2023 STIB sent MoneyOak a reasoned award decision listing only the scores per bidder — and on 26 May, after the action was already filed, a 'complete' version including the percentages; the Council of State suspends nonetheless because the first version is the one that must be assessed legally.
What happened?
STIB launched a 4-year framework agreement worth 431,000 euros (excl. VAT) for tax consultancy services on partial exemption from withholding tax for R&D projects. The procedure chosen: negotiated procedure without prior call for competition. Three firms were invited: MoneyOak, Ayming Benelux and Forecast Consulting. Three award criteria: price (60 points), service quality and performance (20), experience and results (20). On 27 March 2023 all three submitted bids. STIB analyzed them the same day. On price, MoneyOak scored 41.61 and Forecast 60.00; on the other two criteria both scored 20/20. On 3 May STIB awarded the contract to Forecast. On 4 May STIB e-mailed MoneyOak the 'reasoned decision' — the document mentions only the scores per bidder, no offered percentages, no application of the rule-of-three formula prescribed by the tender documents. MoneyOak filed an extreme urgency suspension claim on 19 May. On 26 May — only after the proceedings had started — STIB sent a new version including the percentages, presenting it as a mere 'notification defect'. The Council of State rejected that argument: the reasoned decision is what STIB communicated on 4 May as 'décision motivée'. Without the offered percentages, the bidder cannot verify whether the contracting authority correctly applied the rule of three. Even if the lighter motivation regime of article 29/1 of the 2013 Act applies (because the contract value is below the European threshold), the absence of percentages remains too thin. Suspension granted.
Why does this matter?
Contracting authorities that realize their reasoning was too thin like to send a 'completed' version after the fact. This judgment closes that escape: the version legally tested is the one communicated to the rejected bidder at the moment of notification. A re-issue after the action has been filed counts for nothing — even if the numbers are now in. For rejected bidders this means that a thin reasoning — scores only, no underlying figures — remains a real ground for attack, even for contracts below the European threshold.
The lesson
If you receive a reasoned award decision that lists only the final scores for the price criterion — without the offered amounts, discounts or percentages — the reasoning is legally inadequate. The contracting authority must enable the bidder to reconstruct the awarded points using the formula in the tender documents. If it fails to do so, it cannot fix this afterwards through a 'rectification' — not without restarting the award procedure.
Ask yourself
Open the reasoned decision you received. For the price criterion: are only the score numbers there (e.g. 41.61 vs 60.00), or do you also see the underlying offered amounts or percentages from which those scores can be reconstructed using the tender formula? If only the scores are there, and you feel the score awarded cannot be right — file a suspension request.
About this database
The Council of State (Raad van State / Conseil d'État) is Belgium's supreme administrative court. In disputes over public procurement — from contract awards to tenderer exclusions — the Council of State is the final arbiter. The rulings in this database are summarised by TenderWolf in plain language, with practical lessons for tenderers and contracting authorities. View all rulings →